Deconstructing god, and why I don't believe

[Ghel]

Hobbs, I don't understand your objection to my previous post. By paraphrasing Anatole France's essay "Miracle," I was trying to point out that obvious, provable "miracles" don't happen. There's not reason to think that any human has ever spontaneously regrown a limb.

However, rereading the essay, I am reminded that France's point was different. He said that if a scientist observed something that a miracle believer would claim was a miracle, he would not immediately shout, "here's somthing that is outside of nature!" He would instead say, "Aha! Here's something that we didn't yet know about nature." The scientist would investigate the event. In the example of spontaneous regrowth of a limb, he would try to find out if it happens only in some people or all, and under what circumstances.

A scientist would not say that something "cannot be explained by medicine or science." He or she would merely say that something "has not been explained by medicine or science yet."

[Hobbs]

ed. Miracle: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

My objection is that it points out miracles, and asks for more. People were cured of their lame limbs, yet instead of being awed/whatever, you're whining that people need regrown limbs for proof.

Ironically, the Church investigates miracles the same way. As shocking as this may be, priests are well-educated with degrees, and lots are scientists (ie. engineers, biologists, etc.) and there are regular investigations as to what people claim are 'miracles.' The simple criteria I gave is just a sample, as the investigation is very thorough. Most of the saints prior to 1900 have miracles attributed to them that, nowadays, cannot be proven or disproven. Thusly, this is only seen in miracles ever since, possibly Vatican I.

No person has regrown a limb, but there are substantiated miracles, which the Church has backed up. Now, you may not believe and therefore think the Church's viewpoint is biased, but know that it takes a lot for the Holy See to accept a claim of a miracle.

What you're arguing is semantics. A scientist might say that, but then he might also say, it's out of the realm of physical/material possibility. For instance, a mid-air collision tore the wing off of an Israeli F-15. Rather than crashing to the ground, the pilot flew and landed it. McDonnel Douglas (now Boeing) has no explanation as to how it happened, nor can they replicate the outcome. The point is, the plane shouldn't have flown, it shouldn't have been able to land, and that no investigation now or in the future would be able to tell us how it happened.

Science can only tell us how something happened. It cannot tell us why.

[Ghel]

ed. Miracle: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

By this definition, a miracle is simply an unlikely event or a coincidence. I see no reason to call such a thing a miracle.

... you're whining that people need regrown limbs for proof.

Regrown limbs is merely an example. And my problem with this is twofold: There is no evidence that anyone has ever regrown a limb. And even if there were indisputable evidence, it would not be still not be right to call it a miracle. It would simply mean that there was something more we would need to learn about the way the world works.

No person has regrown a limb, but there are substantiated miracles, which the Church has backed up.

Have any of these "miracles" been investigated by impartial third parties? And what makes anybody think that supposed miracles support the notion that the Catholic God exists?

The point is, the plane shouldn't have flown, it shouldn't have been able to land, and that no investigation now or in the future would be able to tell us how it happened.

In this hypothetical story (and it will remain hypothetical until you give information on date, pilot's name, etc.), the events that happened are extemely unlikely. That doesn't make them a miracle. If the two planes would had passed through each other with neither being damaged, that would have been a miracle. You say one pilot landed, but what happened to the other one? And how does this story support the claim that the Christian God exists?

[Hobbs]

I find it rude that you think I'd lie about something like that. Here's your evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_EXtBEaBbs; http://www.uss-bennington.org/phz-nowing-f15.html

Why is one considered a miracle and the other isn't? You obviously have a different definition of a miracle than other people, so please state it. It doesn't support the claim of a Christian God, I didn't say that. It supports that there are things science cannot or ever explain.

[Ghel]

Lie? Where did I accuse you of lying? I was saying that I didn't have enough evidence from your short description to form an idea of whether the events actually occurred. Now, based on the History Channel's video of the pilot describing what happened, I can definitely say it was not a miracle. Nor is it described as a miracle in either of the links you posted. It is described as a combination of luck, a well-trained pilot, and an aerodynamic aircraft.

I am using a definition of miracle that is similar to the one you quoted (and I would use the one you quoted for medical miracles): a beneficial event that is supernatural (i.e. its source is outside of nature). This is the crux of the difficulty: as soon as something has an effect on the real world, it becomes part of the real world. We can identify it, define it, study it. And if it's part of the natural world, there's no reason to call it a miracle.

I don't believe that there is anything that science cannot ever explain. I think that the things that we don't understand now will probably be understood some day.

Are you saying that you have an explanation for things that science cannot yet explain? You say you're not trying to support the claim of a Christian God. (I assumed that you were because you were using the Vatican to support your claims of miracles. For that, I apologize.) So what is it? Please enlighten us.

[Hobbs]

I was trying to claim that there are things science cannot explain, and that the only explanation is in a deity. Some people would call it God, others Buddha, karma etc.

Yes, I do have an explanation. Divine intervention

[Ghel]

Just because we might not know how a particular thing happens, what makes you think that the only explanation is that a deity did it? Is there something so wrong with saying "I don't know"?

What do you know about this deity that you posit? Can you describe your god? Or are you simply replacing the mystery of a currently unknown bit of nature with the mystery of a god?

[Hobbs]

Kierkegaard reminds us that belief has nothing to do with how or why. Belief is beyond reason. I believe because it is absurd.

[Gravekeeper]

I was trying to claim that there are things science cannot explain, and that the only explanation is in a deity. Some people would call it God, others Buddha, karma etc.

Buddha's a dude, not a god. Go with Allah. ;9

I find it rude that you think I'd lie about something like that. Here's your evidence:

Both of your links give exact explanations for how it happened....not exactly bolstering your case. -.-

[Ghel]

Kierkegaard reminds us ...

I didn't ask what someone else believed. I asked what you believe.

Belief is beyond reason. I believe because it is absurd.

Why? Why would you believe something that you know isn't true? And why should anybody else agree with you?

You still haven't told me WHAT you believe. How do you expect me to agree with your claims that miracles occur and that they're caused by a god, if you don't tell me anything about this god you believe in?

[Hobbs]

Faith by its very nature must transcend logic. If not, then it's not faith. I didn't say it wasn't true, you came to that conclusion.

My belief's, made simple:

I believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen and unseen.


I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through Him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
He came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.


For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
He suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and His kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
I believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I look for the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

PS: Even if I gave you ireffutable proof, I'm sure you would never accept that miracles occur, or that God exists.

[Fryk]

Is that the Nicean Creed?

[Hobbs]

Yes. It's 'Nicene' actually

[Ghel]

Now, you may not believe and therefore think the Church's viewpoint is biased, but know that it takes a lot for the Holy See to accept a claim of a miracle.

It doesn't support the claim of a Christian God, I didn't say that.

I was trying to claim that there are things science cannot explain, and that the only explanation is in a deity. Some people would call it God, others Buddha, karma etc.

Yes, I do have an explanation. Divine intervention

My belief's, made simple:

I believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen and unseen.


I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,

Now I am accusing you of lying. These statements that you have made contradict each other. If you're not going to be honest about what you believe, then there's no reason to continue this conversation.

I believe because it is absurd.

Faith by its very nature must transcend logic. If not, then it's not faith. I didn't say it wasn't true, you came to that conclusion.

You said your beliefs are absurd. That means they aren't true.

PS: Even if I gave you ireffutable proof, I'm sure you would never accept that miracles occur, or that God exists.

I already explained this:

I, personally, believe that no gods exist. However, like most atheists, I leave a tiny little sliver of possibility that a god might exist. Someday, perhaps, I might find evidence that convinces me that a god exists. But that possibility seems so extremely unlikely that I don't want to waste large portions of my life looking for it. I'd rather spend my time enjoying life and figuring out how the world really works.

[Hobbs]

I still don't think you'd ever accept it, even with concrete proof. How are those first comments contradictary? I really don't get how I'm lying between those three quotes.

Being absurd doesn't mean false. The words aren't synonymous.